Any exceptional product will be by definition, elitist. If you want mediocre money, look no further, fiat is here. You want terrible money? Go to Zimbabwe. Paypal, creditcards, bank wires all work perfectly fine for almost anything in a mediocre society. Those living in those societies pay the price for embracing mediocrity through being strongarmed by goons and having their money constantly devalued by shallow moralists.
Now, I want my money to be 100% free from morals, except for those that promote its minimal requirements: freedom from the meddling of idiots who will squander it in their idiotic socialist projects, technological and financial soundness.
Open source is highly overrated, It took an exceptional thinker (or group) to create Bitcoin. Open source has as yet yielded a deluge of shitcoin copies. The only positive aspect is the source code being available so people can trust the protocol to work a certain way.
As an aside, I am annoyed as fuck at the constant misuse of the word consensus, which is turned into the socialistic notion of every idiot's opinion being worth as much as the next man's opinion. This was never true, and I want my money to be created by the brightest of the brightest minds, who disregard what the mediocre might or might not think about their work.
Open source is highly overrated, It took an exceptional thinker (or group) to create Bitcoin. Open source has as yet yielded a deluge of shitcoin copies.
So, why dont you start a proprietary blockchain?
Isn't the the biggest selling argument for Monero still the grassroot open source beginning/transparency opposing Bytecoin?
The market-cap of a currency/network and it's reliablity/stablity are defined through:
- high number of users
- well balanced distribution, easy/fair/open entry
(There is no currency for the smartest, richest or most evil 10000 people in the world only
because it would be worth little.)
Sorry, once again your points either boil down to parasite-logic or express depression. Sorry if you think most people are silly and dont deserve better.
that does not justify to fuel a pump&dumps or risky speculation
I can only second to that.
Especially "consensus". The technical "consensus" of a block chain is in fact the opposite of what socio-democrats think it is: it is not "a majority of feable-minded who can decide on anything", but rather the funny principle that the ONLY thing one is capable to find a majority agreement on, is the immutable protocol.
In other words, "block chain consensus" is the inverse of socio-democratic majority rule: it is the INABILITY to come to any other consensus than the original, immutable "white paper" protocol.
Automated machine consensus works as long as the protocol (and all underlying protocols) cover all possiblites well enough not to make intervention very necessary/collectively favorable. Yet machines are not able nor entitled to decide anything else. Machines are for convenience/repetitive tasks only.
A working human consensus governance always is a required lower level. People often collectively decide/vote to edit a running blockchain core software, not always excluding changes relevant to security or economic rules. Fewer times it was necessary or was not dared, to edit a blockchain history, even tho that isnt necessarily security relevant by design. People also collectively decide to leave/turn off/retire blockchains, or dont even start them despite a potential billion market cap (BitcoinXT). Can you prove any blockchain is immutable?
